Attorney describes lenient plea bargain in federal child sex crime case

4.2.12 WC: 191694 I was called by the man, whom I had known for several years, to help represent him in the matter. I conducted extensive research on the policy of the local prosecutor with regard to such cases, and learned that no one had ever gone to prison under similar circumstances. I then met with the prosecutor on several occasions and we worked out a plea bargain, in which my client would plead guilty to contributing to the delinquency of a minor but would get no jail time. We thought the case was over, until we learned that the local police were not satisfied with this resolution and were bringing the matter to the attention of the United States Attorney’s Office, thus turning it into a federal case. The federal statutes governing sexual contact with underage girls are draconian. Had my client been convicted under them, he could have received a sentence of 25 years for each separate massage. This could have resulted in life imprisonment. We probably could have won the case had we decided to litigate, because there was no interstate aspect to the alleged crimes: all the girls were local and everything happened within that state. Moreover, the alleged “victims” were anything but victims—they sought out my client and repeatedly called his house asking for more business. But the risks were simply too high, in light of the possible sentence if he were to be convicted. For that reason, we entered into an unusual plea bargain, under which the federal government would not prosecute him if he agreed to plead guilty to a state crime that resulted in 18 months imprisonment and the need to register as a sex offender (which he really isn’t). He served only a few months in jail and the rest under house arrest. A group that brings lawsuits on behalf of the victims of sex crimes then sued the federal government for being “too lenient” and tried to get the plea bargain rescinded. I doubt they will succeed. 254 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017341